Schwarzenegger Proposes Billions in Cuts (No new taxes)

AP ^ | Jan 9, 2004 | TOM CHORNEAU

[Tamzee]

Oh heavens... you're discussing math with Hoverbug??? You'll need a couple of these...

P.S. Hi, HB! ;-)

[Hoverbug]

Hi Tams! Wassup?

Hb

[Tempest]

"Cut out ALL taxes used to subsidize state parks and charge a fee, but ya can't have it both ways. "

Well I'd be fine with that. But I don't think anyone will be instituing that policy anytime soon. Do you?

But of course you'd have your vast collection of special interest saying that you can't do that. And then you'd have your civil libertarians and constitutionalist both proclaiming that you couldn't do it unless you did the same with all the other non-critical civil services.

So I guess we'd have to charge road usage fees where ever we went. Then we'd have to have fees for just local parks and bike lanes and jogging tracks, etc, etc. Maybe it wouldn't get that bad but where do you draw the line that would be agreeable to all if not at least most?

Of course we could charge the kids the full cost of their education. But that would kind of defeat the whole concept of the UC system. Which is to offer affordable education. (which it still is especially in California, regardless of the fee increases.) If the state didn't subsidize a portion of the UC system I'm not quite sure what would make it much different than private schools. Except it'd have crappier facilities and slightly poorer educators. And I'm quite sure that abolishing the UC system would not make California very attractive to prospective employers, corporations or families.

[Tempest]

"That's not it at all! I'm saying you can't claim Arnie isn't raising taxes while fees go up."

Actually that's exactly what I'm doing. Because I'm arguing that taxes are not the same as service fees. I'd also like to point out that California's service fee for higher education is still the lowest in the country. I think it's about time we stop undercutting the competition. . . errrrr I mean the other states :-P

[Tempest]

Oh I'd call them philisophical differances ;)

[Tamzee]

Good luck with that, sincerely! Hoverbug is one of the few I'm holding out hope for :-)

I think he just got mixed up with a bad crowd... kids these days, sheesh LOL

HB, resist the peer pressure! Just say no to thugs! ;-)

[jagrmeister]

The car tax was set to increase threefold and Arnold passed a bill preventing that from happening. Please refrain from lying.

Arnold is passing a spending cap that prevents spending above revenues and requires 55% to override.

Arnold proposed cuts in the rate of spending. "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger presented his first budget on Friday, a $76 billion spending plan for the state of California that includes significant cuts in health care, public education and payments to local governments."

One day, I hope, you will stop emulating Clinton.

[liberallarry]

It would appear that Arnold is cutting the rate of growth and that is a positive for me but as you posted there is no reduction from the proposed budget from last summer

Maybe no cuts in the overall budget but two sources - The L.A. Times and the Sacramento Bee - say he is proposing to cut Medical payments to doctor's by as much as 15%.

If such cuts are implemented across the board you can expect to see many rural hospitals shut their doors...and other significant and nasty changes in our health-care system.

[Hoverbug]

LOL!! Sorry about the delayed response. SHMBO said, "the 'puter is mine now" and all that was left for me to do was humbly back away from the keyboard, bowing as I went, saying,"Your wish is but my command m'lady!"

Actually, I think I have you and Tempest just about ready to see the light.

Hey, I can dream, can't I??

Hb

[Hoverbug]

um, that would be "SWMBO"

Hb

[Hoverbug]

Because I'm arguing that taxes are not the same as service fees

I know. I'm arguing the opposite.

Hb

[Hoverbug]

Well I'd be fine with that. But I don't think anyone will be instituing that policy anytime soon. Do you?

No I don't. So I'm saying cut out the servive fees.

Like Arnold said, it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. I agree with him.

Hb

[Joe Hadenuf]

If it's the worlds 5th largest economy then why are they so far in debt?

Because some out-of-staters that relocated here were a little slow when we asked them for help to hang Gray Davis from a political rope. After Gray Davis said he wanted to give the illegal aliens drivers licenses and triple our car taxes, they got the hint and decided to help string Davis up.

Are you listening George Bush?

The greatest state of the greatest country on earth!

[Tamzee]

Dang... I'm jealous.... I'd LOVE to be a SWMBO, it just sounds SO fun :-)

My hubby is too grouchy, I don't even try to go there ;-)

[Hoverbug]

(pssssssssssssst!! just tell him he's right every once in awhile. It's like magic!!!!)

Crude, now I'm gonna be kicked out of the husband's union for giving away secrets!

Hb

[Tamzee]

Kay, try this analogy, okay?

School district collects it's general funding through property taxes. If the school typically pays for the team soccer uniforms with tax money but then decides to stop doing so and makes each player pay for their own uniform, is that "increasing taxes"? Nope. It's not decreasing taxes, either, but it isn't increasing taxes.

[Amerigomag]

The VFL was established in 1935. In 1948 the rate was set at 2% of assessed valuation and has not changed. In 1998 Governor Pete Wilson began a program to subsidize payment of those taxes. Today any vehicle owner still pays the full 2% rate. One third of the tax due is paid directly to DMV during license renewal and the other two thirds are paid by the owner as part of his payment of sales and income taxes.

California's governors don't pass legislation. They sign it into law. While the Governor of California does have some constitutionally limited authority under the executive order to affect state spending it is temporary to his term in office. Neither the governor nor the legislature has "passed" or is in the process of "passing" any legislation which puts a statutory cap on the budget.

While Schwarzenegger has publicly professed a desire to reduce spending, the proposed budget he submitted today offers a very small increase in state spending over our current budget. The spending plan he proposed today is $99.144B, not $76B.

One more time I welcome you to the California topic but your lack of understanding of the issues is beginning to get stale and a bit irritating. In addition there is every indication that little effort is being made to understand these issues or worse yet, the pattern of Republican Party disruptor is emerging.

[Tamzee]

Tell him he's right? Wow.... what a concept, I'll have to try that!!! LOL

Actually we have a great relationship.... if I ask nicely for something the answer is yes, without fail, he spoils me to death. If I demand something, though??? Yikes... I can forget ever, ever, EVER getting it ;-)

[Fledermaus]

More typical BS and LIES from all involved about "cuts". First, Arnold was stupid to also say "deep cuts" that "could hurt".

Second, these programs have been growing at rates in the double digits every year for the last 15 years.

To say that you can't slow the growth or even hold it to even (freeze) or even push a REAL CUT (you know, less money than last year - something politicians do not understand) is ludicrous.

Also, all you need to do is audit these programs and do the cost/benefit ratio and you'll find most of the increases in spending went not to those needing help (which I don't understand how they grew so fast during the 90's when spending really got out of control while Bill Clinton gave us the greatest economy in the history of the universe), but went to the bureaucracy and the hiring of new government employees.

For goodness sakes, they still pay little old ladies to push elevator buttons in the state capital building in Sacremento.

And here's the picture to prove it:

[Hoverbug]

is that "increasing taxes"? Nope.

Yes, it is. The school district says "we need X amount of dollars to pay for the soccer team" so people's property taxes are set to include the amount for the team, including uniforms. The school district gets the money from taxes, then the school district decides to quit buying the uniforms from this fund, and instead charges each player for the uniforms.

Question: Where did the tax money that each team memeber's parents and every other community member pay in property taxes for the uniforms go?

And if what was being collected wasn't enough to support the team, and they had to collect more money from the team members themselves, then SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING WENT UP. They spent what they already got in taxes, PLUS what they charged the students. If they are going to charge the students, then the taxes ALREADY collected for the uniforms should be refunded. Otherwise, the people who were already charged for the uniforms that are now being paid for by the members are getting less for their money, or in other words, paying the same for less service. A tax increase.

It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.

See?

Hb